Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African Art Music
South African Art Music[edit]
Can't be bothered to read the whole thing, but it looks like original research to me. Been listed on cleanup for ages. Some of this could probably be merged somewhere, but I have a feeling if the votes go that way no one will actually do it. Less than 100 google hits for "South African Art Music", but some of those are hits on "...South African art, music, etc...". -R. fiend 05:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Discussion on poll method[edit]
- Keep. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 5 days voters' participation should exceed 10% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be valid for 6 months then reconsider.Iasson 07:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above is NOT valid, the standard Deletion policy applies here. The List of Active Vfd Voters is itself on VfD, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Active Vfd Voters.Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification: I feel I ought to clarify that my comment relates only to Iasson's claims regarding legitimacy of the poll. His vote to keep article is valid. Thryduulf 16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Iasson, how many times do you have to be told that you cannot arbitarily change the deletion policy to match your views? If you want to change the system you must get a consensus to do that, the place to discuss the changes and see if you have support is not here, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Iasson, you seem afraid of following consensus. You've pushed your idea forward without caring what others think. If you annoy enough people, you're going to be put up for RfC or worse soon. Do what Thryduulf suggests instead of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, Iasson, so by your interpretation of the rules which don't exist, one would need 30 or 31 votes for any valid result. Well, about the only article on VfD that's going to reach that quorum is your List of Active Vfd Voters. Without that list we need 10% of nothing, which I think is nothing. So we're back where we started. Listen, VfD is already overburdened with things that should be speedied but are left here for 5 days because people are afraid to go ahead and get rid of them quickly. Having 30 votes on every piece of crap that's listed here is a completely moronic idea, and completely arbitrary. If you want your stupid idea to be policy, there's a procedure you can go through, but I advise you not to waste your time because it stands little chance of passing. -R. fiend 16:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:What you dont understand is that I may propose 10% minimum participation for this poll (as long as my proposed minimum participation policy may differs for another Vfd poll) but you and another one can propose 1% minimum participation. For this hypothetical case if we use 2/3 majority (strong majority) the minimum participation for this poll will be defined to 1%, or if we use the average method the minimum participation will be defined to 4%(=(1+1+10)/3). Is it clear now? I am not imposing my 10% minimum participation POV, like you and the rest admins are doing for your 1% minimum participation POV or for your 0%(equals to no_percentage) minumum participation POV. So stop accusing me, and let me speak and vote freely. Iasson 11:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (comment moved above Andrewa's for clarity by Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC))
- Comment:. The point is that there is a policy currently in force that applies to all articles proposed for deletion - i.e. that a minimum of one vote is cast and the result of the poll is valid as long as the article remains substantially similar to the form in which it was voted on. Whether you agree with this or not, you (nor anyone else for that matter) cannot suggest, impose, recommend, demand, and/or implement etc, a different policy for an individual vote. IM(H)O your proposal would be akin to a general election in which the vote in one constituency required a minimum of 10% participation of those voters who have voted in a local election in the past year for validity and the winner being elected for 5 years, while the adjacent consituency required a minimum participation of 40% of the eligable voting population and the winner being elected for 4 years; with each stipulation being unilaterally declared by the first person to cast their vote. Such a system is (IMO) unworkable. If you want to propose that the existing policy is changed, then do so in the apropriate place (see links in my earlier comment) not here. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:. Thank you for your answers. So the vfd policy regarding the minimum participation percentage applies to all vfd polls and it is 0%+1 vote. Where is this decided? Where is this written? Can you point to a poll that has been used in order to take such decision? I have also questions about the decision method that is used in order to extract the decision from all vfd polls. I asked some admins about that, and I received different answers. One said it is unamimity minus one, another said simple majority, another said consensus(?), and another said the only thing that matters is administrator's judgement when he/she performs the deletion. Is there any common decided decision method that applies to all vfd polls? Where is this written? Where is this voted? Iasson 15:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:. As I understand it (I've not been here a month yet myself) the votes for deletion has always opperated in this manner. Prior to your attempt to set up a list of active voters, there was no such list of people who had voted in polls. As such a percentage of voters was neither known nor knowable (x as a percentage of y is unsolvable when the value of y is not known), meaning that a validity based on a percentage of (active) voters impossible. The only other option for validity then is an absolute number of votes. The figure chosen is 1 vote (not 0%+1 vote, just 1 vote).
- Comment:What you dont understand is that I may propose 10% minimum participation for this poll (as long as my proposed minimum participation policy may differs for another Vfd poll) but you and another one can propose 1% minimum participation. For this hypothetical case if we use 2/3 majority (strong majority) the minimum participation for this poll will be defined to 1%, or if we use the average method the minimum participation will be defined to 4%(=(1+1+10)/3). Is it clear now? I am not imposing my 10% minimum participation POV, like you and the rest admins are doing for your 1% minimum participation POV or for your 0%(equals to no_percentage) minumum participation POV. So stop accusing me, and let me speak and vote freely. Iasson 11:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (comment moved above Andrewa's for clarity by Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC))
- OK, Iasson, so by your interpretation of the rules which don't exist, one would need 30 or 31 votes for any valid result. Well, about the only article on VfD that's going to reach that quorum is your List of Active Vfd Voters. Without that list we need 10% of nothing, which I think is nothing. So we're back where we started. Listen, VfD is already overburdened with things that should be speedied but are left here for 5 days because people are afraid to go ahead and get rid of them quickly. Having 30 votes on every piece of crap that's listed here is a completely moronic idea, and completely arbitrary. If you want your stupid idea to be policy, there's a procedure you can go through, but I advise you not to waste your time because it stands little chance of passing. -R. fiend 16:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Iasson, you seem afraid of following consensus. You've pushed your idea forward without caring what others think. If you annoy enough people, you're going to be put up for RfC or worse soon. Do what Thryduulf suggests instead of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Iasson, how many times do you have to be told that you cannot arbitarily change the deletion policy to match your views? If you want to change the system you must get a consensus to do that, the place to discuss the changes and see if you have support is not here, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not an article is actually deleted or not is the decision of the administrator. This decision is based on the votes and comments on the votes for deletion page. Where a consensus (which I personally define as "all or the vast majority of voters agree") has been reached then the administrator will go with that consensus to delete or keep (or merge, etc) - e.g. consensus (by my definition) has been reached in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boris Johnson, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Active Vfd Voters and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ariel Ortega. "Unanimity minus 1" is an alternative definition of consensus.
- If consensus hasn't been reached, and no clear majority exists then personal judgment by the administrator will probably be used. This can also happen in other situations, e.g. if the article was improved part way through voting, the administrator might chose to disregard votes cast before the improvement; I exepct that the decision to keep or delete in the Olb case will come down to personal judgment. Thryduulf 16:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This personal judgement method admins are using in order to decide what to delete is very funny ! As Dr_Zen said it: "They call for a vote and they finnaly ignore the outcome! They might just as well delete whatever they please and not bother with the vote" :-))))) Iasson 20:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment(striked through because I couldn't resist saying it, but I am not convinced I will have nothing else to say on this matter in the future!) Thryduulf 22:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree that Iasson's vote counts, but IMO his statement on the conduct of the vote does not supersede existing policy, so the above discussion is of no relevance to the vote. This is I'm sure obvious to all admins but may be confusing to others. My advice is to ignore the above and vote below. Andrewa 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, VfD is not the place to discuss this. Wyss 22:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As myself and others have threatened, I have opened a RfC on User:Iasson for this behavior. It can be found here for interested parties: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iasson. Thank you. hfool/Roast me 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Votes[edit]
- note Iasson's vote is in the discussion section above. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Signed essays do not belong here. Transwikied to Wikinfo. Andrewa 18:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. And the article threatens more just like it. RickK 23:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, POV original research. Megan1967 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, or redirect to music of South Africa Tuf-Kat 00:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Just to make it clear that nothing I have said above constitutes a vote for or against this proposal. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Personal essay Philip 22:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as Megan1967 above. Wyss 22:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge: needs a lot of editing, but on a quick read about 30% of this looks like Wikipedia material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)